Talk:Second Russian Civil War
Format I'm not too fond of the way these war articles are written. They're too intricate in the events -- if we're going to write general articles about the major conflicts, we should be looking the big picture and summarising the single-player campaign events in an out-of-universe tone. Otherwise, it's a blocky version of the mission overviews. These articles should, in my opinion, resemble the conflict pages on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 02:50, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :I'm inclined to agree with this. Mechanical 42 05:44, December 28, 2009 (UTC) Writing This article looks like it was written by someone with English as a second or third language. :The whole article needs to be cleaned up, but I don't see how that comment is productive. --Scottie theNerd 02:17, January 4, 2010 (UTC) Rewriting I read the article and I am forced to agree with Scottie and the IP user. I'll begin to rewrite the article, and someone please give me constructive criticism of how I rewrote it once I'm done. I plan on making it more of a war article than a mission summary. Cultred 16:44, June 27, 2010 (UTC) Okay, I finally finished the rewriting of the article. I'm replacing the current article with this, but if an admin considers this unnecessary, just undo it. I'd love some constructive criticism.Cultred 23:24, July 26, 2010 (UTC) Shepherd According to the page edit history, some people believe that an army general cannot command any marines. HOWEVER, if he is the most senior officer present, he would be given command by the Corps if the U.S. force that attacked the country. And so, he could be leading marines as long as no Marine Corps officer with a higher rank than him is present. And in MW2 it was 100% certain the event he spoke of was the nuclear explosion seen in Shock and Awe. We also cannot be certain whether or not the operation was a joint operation or just U.S. marines, as army elements may have taken a small role in the battle (thus Shepherd's presence) and it is not explained. But what is certain is that he had a close relationship (i.e. commanding officer) with the 30,000 marines who died, and so I think it is safe to say that he was one of the people in command of the force, if not the "BMOC". It's not just speculation, we know he had something big to do with them. The speculation is the exact reason for him being in command.Cultred 20:16, September 1, 2010 (UTC) :The explanation isn't quite accurate. An Army general cannot take command of a Marine unit as they are different service branches; just as an Air Force officer cannot take over a Navy post. However, if he was given the position of commander of the U.S. forces, all units report to him regardless of branch and that is the likely nature of his command. Rank technically doesn't matter, but he would have been promoted in rank to be given that position anyway. --Scottie theNerd 00:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC) Why would Zakhaev get the world's sympathy after he was shot the 1st time?Makarov29 11:28, March 22, 2011 (UTC) Because in 2011, there are many anti-American worldwide who willing to share his anti-Western and nationalism agenda with him, or inspired by him because they want to get rid of what they described as 'Puppet of USA' government in their own country. Also, if I'm not wrong, based on my logic in these reality world, the world will also criticize the West for interventing Russian civil war. So I think they will take this opportunity to 'uprise against the Westerners' My god, please sign your post (whether you are a member or not) after finish writing it. You were right. In 2011, there are some countries who are willing to share his further ideology amid their tensions and small cold conflicts with U.S.A. But don't forget, there are also People who wants to overthrow their regime who also describe them as corrupted, suppressive and authoritarian regime. So seizing this chance, they sympathize and like you said, they condemn Westerners killing of Imran Zakhaev. 03:42, May 24, 2011 (UTC) I don't think that the Middle East should be part of the article. Because, America's still fighting the OpFor in 2016. 08:40, April 19, 2011 (UTC) So what? USA also fighting their long-time arch-foe Ultranationalists, with only somebody worst replace Imran Zakhaev's leadership. That's all. Ultranationalists are behind the OpFor's coup. This is why Ultranationalists are involved and connected to OpFors 08:17, April 20, 2011 (UTC) We should make a separate article on the war in the Middle East. The OpFor are not in Russia.Goodboy12 22:40, May 28, 2011 (UTC) I think it should stay. If there would be a separate article, then it should state that its a "proxy war" of the Second Russian Civil War. No, they stay. It was clear the OpFor was co-belligerent. OpFor got their equipment and money from the Ultranationalist. 'Ultranationalist Party Splits into Two Groups' I was just wondering whether or not we could state as a tactical victory for the UK/USA/Russian Loyalist forces that the Ultranationalist Party split into two forces and were left leaderless for a time. This left serious consequences for the party as Makarov was forced to remove himself from the prime position of the Ultranationalist Party. As a result, he attempted to murder Boris Vorshevsky and turned a largely split faction of the party into a terrorist cell. AA 03:39, July 23, 2011 (UTC) Makarov KIA Makarov should not be listed as KIA *With the cross next to his name* in this conflict as he did not die until after World War III, The Second Civil war effectivley ended before the events of MW2. 19:00, November 17, 2011 (UTC) :That's true; thanks for pointing that out. Fixed. 19:52, November 17, 2011 (UTC)